Developments in Russia and Ukraine
Even as the war between Russia and Ukraine rages on, the likelihood of a Ukrainian counter-attack in the first week of May is now certain, and it is also clear – from Russian evacuations near Kherson – that Russia is dreading it. This is notwithstanding Russia’s dismissal of leaked Pentagon documents which, among other aspects, highlighted Ukraine’s rigorous level of preparedness for its summer counter-offensive. As it is, Russia is trying to hold onto Bakhmut at a great cost to itself and will not be able to sustain its occupation much longer. The inability of Russia to sustain the war effort is visible in its plans to impose a mobilization tax on the profits earned by its big corporates.
Internally, Russia continues to be riven by discord. It is widely believed that beyond the numerical approval ratings for the regime within Russia – which are just an eyewash – the reality is that massive civil discontent is widely prevalent across Russia. This civil discontent can, it is widely believed, snowball into an open civil strife in the times to come. Discontent is perceived across two lines viz. between people who are beneficiaries of the war and those are at the losing end because of it, and, between Russian centre and the regions. The former will become more visible as Russia struggles to fund its military effort at an increasing pace at the cost of other economic sectors which may require finances and directly affect the people. The latter is already much more pronounced.
Recent reports from North Caucasus reveal how secessionist, anti-Moscow sentiment is once again on the rise in the region, directly connected to Russia’s war in Ukraine which has shown Russia in a poor light and reinforced the idea that it is not, after all, invincible. Weapons have started flooding the region (as seen through the unearthing of underground arms depots), even as there has been a drawing down of Russian forces in the region to beef up the military numbers for the war with Ukraine.
On the diplomatic front, central and eastern Europe is actively developing avenues to find alternatives to reliance on Russia in any form, especially where it concerns their energy security. In recent times, Poland and Czechia have signed two agreements on natural gas projects viz. an interconnector gas pipeline (“Stork II”) between the two countries, and Czech investment in an LNG import terminal in Poland. In particular, Poland is rapidly consolidating itself as a bulwark against Russia, having emerged as the latter’s key nemesis. Not only has Poland been expanding gas pipelines with its various other neighbouring countries (such as Lithuania and Slovakia) since 2022 but has also dramatically increased its defence spending as a percentage of GDP, compared to other NATO countries. This year, Poland’s defence spending is expected to double to almost 4% of its GDP.
Outside of Europe, Russia is struggling to hold onto its power through its now-common modus operandi viz. by spreading disinformation campaigns and through cyber-attacks. This is visible in Russian efforts in Latin America where it seems to have cultivated positive relationships with communist dictatorships like Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. In Venezuela, the government has expanded military and intelligence cooperation with Russia, with Wagner Group now being deployed in there. In Nicaragua, the Ortega regime, with Russian assistance, is building a comprehensive dictatorship, taking Russian aid in cyber-intelligence, setting up a cadre of pro-Russian intelligence officers and allowing Russian forces to be stationed there. In Cuba, the emulation of Russia has reached the levels of Castro regime, with both sides discussing economic plans for Cuba.
Science and Technology Update
New developments in the field of science and technology have become an almost daily feature. And amongst these new developments, Artificial Intelligence (AI) – that seamless and apparently endless field of possibilities – has appeared as a regular frontier, as the interactions between humans and AI increase and become more commonplace. The advances in this field are occurring in leaps and bounds, with endless possibilities and potentialities opening before mankind.
From the use of AI in warfare and national security to its mainstreaming into the details of human lives, the field has grown rapidly in the last few years. Presently, the field is riven by debate over the impact AI is having on our daily lives. This is especially so about generative language AI software such as Chat GPT, and, its successor, Auto GPT. While Chat GPT is causing a disruption across all sectors, including areas of intellectual and creative activity like education, research, law etc., another such AI-powered software, Auto GPT, can perform daily tasks and multiple functions for users, from giving ideas to managing business accounts to new creative functions. The development of such AI-enabled applications and the swiftness with which they are becoming a part of daily lives of people have raised concerns about whether such AI will replace humans entirely in the near and far future.
At the present moment, AI is assisting us, but it is no longer difficult to envisage a future where the human and AI realms become indistinguishable; for instance, through insertion of chips inside human bodies or through potential technologies like mind-scanning. The possibilities are endless. Already, the technology to integrate AI and brain-scans in order to enable machines to read minds is officially here. The claim is that it can help people who cannot speak to communicate. However, at the same time, this technology has also raised concerns that no mental privacy will be left. Mind reading will now be enabled through simple, commonplace MRI and brain scans.
The ability of AI to bring massive, disruptive changes to human lives is now unfolding to such an extent that many AI creators and founders have cautioned against the rapid rise of AI and its dangerous consequences. However, the march that has begun is unlikely to slow down.
Rise of Ultraconservative Islam in Indonesia
A new trend is visible in Indonesian Islam in the form of the rise of an ultraconservative Islamic radical movement known as Hijrah. This new brand of Islam, powered by radical Wahhabi roots, mobilizes modern audience through conservatism. It appeals to a new generation of youth through social media, seeking to either convert them to Islam or re-orient their moderate beliefs in a new, hardline direction. It has mainly spread, in recent times, through the power of the Internet and social media, and especially via celebrities.
The fast spread of this new form of Islam has been viewed as a threat and a concern by the Indonesian authorities, who fear that its popularity will make Indonesia a much more radicalized country, diluting its earlier brand of secularism and moderate Islam. Already the movement has gathered millions of followers and is getting strong. It led a movement against building of Christian churches. The emergence of this movement has happened alongside the rise of other radical groups in Indonesia, such as Hizbut Tahrir and the Islamic Defenders Front, which have called for a Muslim caliphate in Indonesia, and were banned by the government.
The development brings to the forefront how Islamic religious hardliners are using the power of technology to spread themselves. The fact that it is having an impact on the youth is particularly concerning. The trend also reflects Islamization happening across Indo-Pacific countries, which stands in contrast to the attempts to dilute Islamic extremism in Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia.
Civil Strife in Sudan
The crisis in Sudan has rapidly transformed from being a power struggle between two rival domestic factions to a full-blown civil strife situation. The present situation is the result of an aborted transition to democracy in the country in 2019 after the fall of the 30-year dictatorship of Omar al-Bashir. In the aftermath of the fall of the dictatorship in 2019, a coalition government of leaders of Sudanese army and paramilitary forces (viz. the Rapid Support Forces or RSF) was formed, in order to ease the country into a democratic transition. The army is led by al-Burhan and the paramilitary forces are led by Md. Hamdan Dagolo, also called Hemeti. However, this transition never came to be.
The present crisis is the result of personal political rivalry between the two factions over who will take control of the country, made worse by the complicity of other regional powers to dictate the political equations in resource-rich Sudan. While the complicity of other countries is not very visible, yet skeletons have rolled out of the closet in recent days, with the involvement of Russia’s private militia, the Wagner Group, coming to light, for exploiting resource-rich Sudan and funneling the earnings to carry on the war in Ukraine, and of Egypt supporting the Sudanese army led by al-Burhan. Egypt’s involvement came to light after its soldiers in Sudan were declared as being taken hostage by Hemeti’s RSF.
Egypt’s main insecurity stemmed from the following factors:
First was the fact that Russia’s Wagner’s support to RSF – a paramilitary force outside of conventional/national military leadership – might give a foreign power (Russia) a foothold in Sudan, right in Egypt’s backyard. The deal between Wagner and RSF involved Wagner’s presence and military access to Port Sudan.
Second, Egypt also is seen as wanting to establish its own military presence in Sudan – for which it had already stationed its forces long before the present conflict erupted – and solicit Sudan’s support in its dispute with Ethiopia over the latter’s construction of a dam that might block the flow of Nile river.
Besides Egypt, the stakes of other regional powers continue to be minimal as of now. UAE and Saudi Arabia initially had close ties with Hemeti’s RSF and the latter’s soldiers were even sent to Yemen to fight alongside Saudi-UAE coalition. However, in recent years, with UAE and Saudi Arabia attempting to moderate their interventionism across the Middle-east, the two regional powers have tried to strike a balanced relationship between both Hemeti and al-Burhan. The present civil strife, if it snowballs into a full-blown civil war, will not permit such delicate balancing to sustain for much longer, thereby forcing the regional powers as well as, perhaps, the West to intervene to force a resolution. For, instability in Sudan will directly threaten Saudi Arabia (which shares a long coastal border with the country) and cause regional instability as well.
Legal Wrangle Over Same-Sex Marriages
The debates over gender identities, homosexuality and same sex marriages appear to have reached a peak in the present times. Barely five years ago, India was debating whether homosexuality should be decriminalized. Having achieved its decriminalization, the debate has now moved to the rights of the homosexual people, in particular the demand for legalizing same sex marriages. This is not surprising and such demands were bound to follow decriminalization. However, what is surprising is how precariously close we are to destabilizing and uprooting our entire cultural edifice, sacrificing it at the altar of Western fads.
Despite the fact that no political party has lent support to this cause, religious groups spanning Hinduism, Christianity and Islam have stanchly opposed it, and the government has taken a firm line against legalization of same sex marriages, the homosexual community has found an ally in the country’s Supreme Court. It appears that the present Chief Justice of India has placed this issue on a priority, ignoring thousands of other serious issues which may merit judicial scrutiny.
As a result, the Supreme Court is presently holding regular – near daily hearings – on this matter, on the basis of petitions filed in November 2022. These petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Special Marriages Act (1954) on the ground that it only recognizes marriages between male and female only, thereby discriminating against same-sex couples by denying them matrimonial benefits such as adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits. They further took the reference of the past judgements that decriminalized homosexuality (NALSA judgement of 2014, and, Navtej Singh Johar judgement of 2018) and argued that disallowing legal recognition of same sex marriages is against the Fundamental Rights of equality, freedom of expression and living with dignity.
The Supreme Court bench decided that, for now, it will limit itself to examining the validity of the Special Marriages Act (1954) and not touch upon any of the religious personal laws. The manner in which the Court hearings have proceeded has come as a jolt to the nation. The statements being made by the judges, especially the CJI, border on absurd intellectuality. For instance, on the first day of hearing, in response to the argument of the government that marriage, under Special Marriages Act (1954), was one between a biological man and a biological woman, the CJI was quick to declare that man and woman cannot be defined on the basis of biology and that their meaning went beyond the possession of mere reproductive organs.
In the Court, the government side has emphasized on the facts that:
First, the State has compelling interest to regulate the institution of marriage, as it is not only between two individuals, but also has wider social impacts, related to childcare, alimony and a host of other legal rights. In India, marriages between heterosexual couples have been recognized for thousands of years. Legalization of same sex marriages, it was argued, would destroy the very basis of the State and subvert the cultural principles on which the society has been based.
Legalization of such marriages would mean that homosexual couples would not only claim a host of civil and economic rights, they would also be able to adopt children, who would not only become unwilling victims of such an enterprise without their consent, but this will further perpetuate such culture in society. Furthermore, legalizing same sex marriages would complicate a host of other laws, such as those related to divorce, rape etc. where gender binary is in-built.
The government further quoted a 2010 decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the same issue which said that states cannot be compelled to accept same sex marriages and that each country has different, deep-rooted social and cultural conditions which must be addressed by national law.
Second, the government Solicitor General also argued that laws could not be changed without achieving social acceptance and, therefore, Parliament was the institution which reflected the will of the people and was eligible to make changes to laws. The government further argued that if the Supreme Court tried to amend or re-write the Special Marriages Act (1954) by itself, it would violate the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary and, therefore, violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, such issues should be left to Parliament.
Besides these broad arguments, many other arguments have taken place on both sides inside the Courtroom. The government has even given a concession of sorts by agreeing to form a committee, chaired by a cabinet minister, to investigate the grievances of this community. Even this has been mocked by the opposing side as merely an administrative measure without the guarantee of a legal right. The hearings are set to continue in the days and weeks to come. They have brought home to us the destruction that can potentially be wrought on Indian society if same sex marriages were indeed legalized.
What these hearings have done is to lay open before us the extent to which our society has been crippled due to our collective incapacity to stand up for ourselves. More than a century ago, Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda spoke about the Aryan spirit and spiritual heritage of which we are the inheritors. Swami Vivekananda had also said that our surest route to self-destruction would be to abandon our spirituality to go after the materialistic civilization of the West. The fad for marriage equality is one such instance.
In a materialistic society whose principle is the endless satisfaction of desires and their justification, the scope for ever increasing perversion and twisted processes is, no matter how surprising, only to be expected. It is one of the first psychological instincts of the Western mind that as long as a desire can be reasonably couched and justified, it has to be satisfied and acted upon. In India, the impulse had been the opposite. But the onslaught of Western education and liberalization has perverted our psychology as well, and the present debate is a symptom of such a malaise.
